What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Have we won the safety battle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've long held the belief that most new safety measures aimed at GA are expressly designed as makework so various bureaucracies can maintain funding and staffing, not because they will have any real impact on safety.
 
During a life time of observation, I have learned that most people are alike and have not changed ways of thinking for thousands of years. ( not I am not that old, but looking a historical events, and the written word)

You have observed the immediate reaction to a problem when presented in this forum. People are good intentioned, but the different backgrounds a experience, yield different proposed solutions. In large companies and large organizations, there are some good managers, but due to the pressure for quick solutions to be better than their peers, they come up with instant reactions to issues then put them into action (frequently) without true consideration for the full consequences. The deeper in the organization it goes during implementation the more stupid the actions become. Not really planned, but just lacking any incentive to change, after all, the quick manager got promoted, so the actions, therefore, were good.

Then . . . .

Along the way, smart people take a look at reality and with a new perspective see ways to overcome both the status quo and the stupidity of commanded results. This is when substantive, acceptable change may begin.

In an open and non-autocratic organization, the new perspective dissolves the **** and we have real improvement. There is less of that these days.
 
good article

Here’s a number that should be on the front page of every major newspaper: 224. That’s how many people died–worldwide–in airline crashes last year. Around 3 billion people boarded some 35 million flights, each of them traveling over 500 miles per hour in an aluminum tube 7 miles above the earth. And only 224 died. That’s simply an incredible number.

Some other statistics may put it into perspective:

Over 400 people died in the United States last year from falling out of bed.
Over 300 people drown in bathtubs every year.
About 2,900 people are killed by hippos in the average year.

thanks for posting this. watch out for hippos in flight!
 
Steve Melton said:
Here?s a number that should be on the front page of every major newspaper: 224. That?s how many people died?worldwide?in airline crashes last year. Around 3 billion people boarded some 35 million flights, each of them traveling over 500 miles per hour in an aluminum tube 7 miles above the earth. And only 224 died. That?s simply an incredible number.

Some other statistics may put it into perspective:

Over 400 people died in the United States last year from falling out of bed.
Over 300 people drown in bathtubs every year.
About 2,900 people are killed by hippos in the average year.

thanks for posting this. watch out for hippos in flight!
Click to expand...

No, no, no...it's hippos taking baths before bed that we need to watch out for! :D

Thanks for the link LP...quite an interesting read!
 
Good Article

I long ago stopped trying to get that last tiny percentage point .... there are just some folks that you will never reach. When I talk about risk analysis, risk trades and risk acceptance (I don't actually like the word "safety" - it is so untrue), I might be apparently talking to some experienced folks, while in actuality, the people I am trying reach are the newbies out on the edge of the circle who are still trying to understand how it all works.

Once a pilot or builder gets to a certain point in their experience, I don't believe I am going to change them. A significant event might change them (if they survive), but all the talk in the world won't. So we do it for the new guys who are still looking for role models.

Flying will never be "safe", but we can intelligently buy down the risk with careful actions and decision making.
 
Paul has it right on.

As a career fireman, I knew what I did was inherently unsafe------and so does the fire fighting community at large.

We are trained to access the risks, and deal with them as best as we can via equipment, tactics, and training.

Kinda like flying :D
 
Ironflight said:
I long ago stopped trying to get that last tiny percentage point ...
Click to expand...

Yep, because the effort required to get the last little bit goes up exponentially.

Many of us in the business of doing formal risk assessments can detach ourselves from the emotion of "what if" and simply assign a score to the risk, and behave accordingly. Unfortunately, many people focus on the merely possible and spiral down a rabbit hole chasing the impossible goal of absolute safety. We see it on this forum all the time. Examples are day/VFR aircraft equipped with dual ADHRS, backup steam, multiple GPS receivers and backup alternators. Yes, it's possible your glass will die... And you are somehow in the clouds.... At night....

...but it's also possible a chunk of rock from space is going to take your wing off.

But it's not just the layperson that gets into this trap. I can recall attending an "all hands" safety briefing at Dryden, and the Director told us "safety was our #1 priority". Right... We all thought it was testing new aircraft. It is a "flight test center". Says so right on the sign at the gate!

We all understand the message, but we have to be realistic. 224 deaths is a remarkable achievement, and unless you were one of those killed, it is statistically insignificant. I think we can claim that the airlines officially have a safe, stable process. We, on the other hand, have a ways to go. I agree wholeheartedly that the freedom of GA flying is worth hanging onto at all costs (including a higher fatality rate), but we continue to make the same, easily preventable mistakes. Running out of gas comes to mind right off the bat. However, if that really is the price of being free, then I'll accept that cost.
 
Not So Sure

I don't know. The author of the article argues that because commercial flying has become so low-risk, the FAA should stop trying to keep lowering the risk. But that's a paradoxical argument.

The reason we've achieved this remarkable record is because the FAA and others have relentlessly hunted down risk factors over the decades--often by literally forcing the airlines to do things that they just wouldn't have done on their own. And there still are some areas of potential high risk--such as the way the regionals abuse their pilots and the recent trend of the majors to outsource their maintenance to uncertified overseas outfits--that need attention.

And I'm also not convinced as the author argues that we've done everything there is to do to make GA safer. I don't think we need to mandate twin turbines and Part 25 standards, but we could certainly benefit from a little more professionalism in the GA cockpit. And that's on all of us.

As a former Air Force wing chief of safety I know what a thankless job the safety business can be. Most of the time the best thing that can happen is nothing bad. I'm sure our colleagues in the FAA often feel the same way.

Let's not forget that even with the requirements the Feds place on us, we still have the freest, highest-capacity, and safest air transportation enterprise in the world. There's very few places in the world where you can just hop in your puddle-jumper and go just about anywhere you want. But freedom isn't free. I'm not ready to relax on risk reduction and I hope the FAA isn't either.

-Matt
402BD
 
MartinPred said:
I don't know. The author of the article argues that because commercial flying has become so low-risk, the FAA should stop trying to keep lowering the risk. But that's a paradoxical argument.

The reason we've achieved this remarkable record is because the FAA and others have relentlessly hunted down risk factors over the decades--often by literally forcing the airlines to do things that they just wouldn't have done on their own. And there still are some areas of potential high risk--such as the way the regionals abuse their pilots and the recent trend of the majors to outsource their maintenance to uncertified overseas outfits--that need attention.

And I'm also not convinced as the author argues that we've done everything there is to do to make GA safer. I don't think we need to mandate twin turbines and Part 25 standards, but we could certainly benefit from a little more professionalism in the GA cockpit. And that's on all of us.

As a former Air Force wing chief of safety I know what a thankless job the safety business can be. Most of the time the best thing that can happen is nothing bad. I'm sure our colleagues in the FAA often feel the same way.

Let's not forget that even with the requirements the Feds place on us, we still have the freest, highest-capacity, and safest air transportation enterprise in the world. There's very few places in the world where you can just hop in your puddle-jumper and go just about anywhere you want. But freedom isn't free. I'm not ready to relax on risk reduction and I hope the FAA isn't either.

-Matt
402BD
Click to expand...
So, more rules, more feds, more "safety". Sorry, I don't believe that. How many air passenger safety events have the TSA prevented? Maybe a little non parallel. But a point to say that, one - do we have a problem, two - the average federal government employee does not have GA accident rates as their number one objective (that would be their careers and salary).

As should be asked of those advocating higher personal taxation, how much federal involvement is enough? And what will the "game" look like when we reach this point? Slicing GA by 25, 50%, will reduce the number of accidents!!! And more federal involvement WILL reduce GA activity.
 
Last edited:
MartinPred said:
I don't know. The author of the article argues that because commercial flying has become so low-risk, the FAA should stop trying to keep lowering the risk. But that's a paradoxical argument....
Click to expand...

Not quite. The FAA needs to balance safety with "promoting the industry". In this role, the FAA's goal is to achieve a stable, safe process that is also accessible by the traveling public. That goal has been reached. Arguably, they have even gone too far in that traveling is not as convenient as it once was... But there is no doubt that it is plenty safe.

You argue that there is still work to be done in the risk of outsourced maintenance and pilot abuse- but where are the statistically relevant accidents that illustrate this as a problem?

It is difficult to accept success in a culture that has had the fantasy of "continuous improvement" forced down our throats for the last 20 years, but every now and then we do finally get it right. Far from giving up, the focus needs to shift from the relentless quest for more safety, to the consistent maintenance of the stellar record we now enjoy. This does fly in the face of a non profit, ever growing government agency, but makes perfect sense to those of us trying to make a living in the industry.
 
Last edited:
Maximum effort for minimum return

MartinPred said:
As a former Air Force wing chief of safety I know what a thankless job the safety business can be. Most of the time the best thing that can happen is nothing bad. I'm sure our colleagues in the FAA often feel the same way.

...But freedom isn't free. I'm not ready to relax on risk reduction and I hope the FAA isn't either.

-Matt
402BD
Click to expand...

Matt gave a great perspective from the point of view of a GA pilot and AF wing chief of safety. Let me chime in from the point of view of a GA pilot, airline instructor, and retired Air Force Chief of Aviation Safety.

On my watch, the Air Force had 3 record safety years (see Robert Goyer's article in FLYING). In one of those years, we didn't crash or destroy a single aircraft. Our Class A mishap rate* hovered around 1.0 per 100,000 flying hours. That's phenomenal! From my chair at the AF Safety Center, I attributed the lion's share of credit to Wing safety chiefs like Matt, supported by leaders at all levels.

*Class A mishap: fatality, permanent total disability, aircraft destroyed, or more than $2 million in damage.

But aside from my normal job of implementing AF-level mishap prevention programs, my "task" was to continue finding innovative programs, methods, processes, and tools to keep reducing mishaps. We implemented Military FOQA and ASAP programs in some of our fleets, expanding slowly over time. ASAP fits well for our 'airline-like' mobility and transport fleets, but is a round hole for the fighter/bomber force's square peg...but the USAF is solving that too.

My point? It takes ever-increasing effort and dollars to chip away at what few mishaps you have. The real benefit comes from reduced mishap damages and injuries at the Class B and C level. Those don't sound important, but I believe a Class B or C mishap was really an avoided or prevented Class A mishap. In that scope, I see incredible success (and savings to the taxpayer).

My next point: To NOT expend this effort is criminal, because ZERO mishaps must always remain the goal. 'Close to zero' is not close enough. I know: Aviation is inherently dangerous, and we'll never remove all the risk, but what a difference it makes when we find a way to save one more life or aircraft. We don't always know when that 'save' took place: Like Matt alluded, you can fly a week's worth of sorties without a single mishap, but have no idea whether your safety program had anything to do with it. I'm OK with that, 'cause no news truly is good news.

My third point: I concur with one general sentiment expressed throughout this thread---there is such a thing as too much. Like the AF Safety Center, the FAA has an obligation to find ways to drive mishaps down. However, when those efforts stifle or impede the efforts of conscientious aircraft owners, operators, builders, and pilots...when the policies seek to address risks or hazards that simply don't exist...then the governing safety agency and policy has overstepped their sphere of responsibility.

My final point: Paul and Mike are discussing risk management from leader/commander level. Risk Management involves identifying risks, considering/devising/selecting mitigation tactics, implementing those tactics, measuring their effectiveness, and determining whether all the risk was addressed...and quantifying what risk remains. The person must decide whether the REMAINING risk is acceptable. That is critical. In their jobs at NASA and in the fire department, Paul and Mike got the risk down to what they considered acceptable. I am certain they also faced situations where they made 'no-go' decisions.

As pilots, we are no different.
 
Steve Melton said:
Here?s a number that should be on the front page of every major newspaper: 224. That?s how many people died?worldwide?in airline crashes last year. Around 3 billion people boarded some 35 million flights, each of them traveling over 500 miles per hour in an aluminum tube 7 miles above the earth. And only 224 died. That?s simply an incredible number.

Some other statistics may put it into perspective:

Over 400 people died in the United States last year from falling out of bed.
Over 300 people drown in bathtubs every year.
About 2,900 people are killed by hippos in the average year.

thanks for posting this. watch out for hippos in flight!
Click to expand...

The perspective is wrong. 350 million people in the US times 365 sleeps divided by 400 deaths is 319 million sleeps per death. 3 billion plane rides divided by 224 deaths gives 13 million plane rides per death. So statistically it is still considerably more dangerous flying than sleeping. You have 24 times larger possibility of dying when entering an airliner than when going to bed, statistically.

Hippos on the other hand, watch out for those hippos!!

What point is he making by these statistics? None other than showing he has no clue of what he is talking about regarding risk.

Nevertheless, he has a valid point. It is madness to expect the same low level of risk for GA as for airliners. I don't think anything much will happen before GA is more clearly divided into transportation and recreation both regarding licenses and aircraft certification. Maybe also with more fine grained gradual steps from the simplest to the more complex. This is what is happening in Europe now, although exactly how is still confusing.

Basically it will be one air sport license (LAPL) that covers airplane up to 2000 kg (4000 lbs) and 4 seats, and with rating for Heli, glider, acro and so on. With a LAPL you can only fly within Europe, because the US, Canada etc don't recognize this license (neither the training nor the medical I think). Flight hours from (European) UL will count towards a LAPL. With a LAPL you can easily obtain a PPL and then a CPL. The IFR rules will be very much relaxed for en route IFR, making it possible to take off VFR, fly en route IFR and land VFR without having to take the full IFR cyllabus, only about 1/3 and equally relaxed yearly hours.

With airplanes there will be a much relaxed system, but I have given up trying to understand how all that will be. There is a CS-LSA, that is US-LSA-ish regarding weights but with retractable gear and CS propeller, but no acro!

It is going in the right direction, but in a very confusing manner.
 
Airline safety forum?

Low Pass said:
Interesting discussion at the link below...
http://airfactsjournal.com/2014/01/won-safety-battle/
Click to expand...

Interesting maybe. The author seems to me to be conflating two almost completely unrelated subjects. The airlines may be in a position to rightfully ask "how safe is safe enough." Nobody flying GA aircraft has any rational basis for claiming that statistics are so great for us, and the author doesn't exactly but even mentioning the stats of both in the same article is questionable. No basis for comparison.

I get that the FAA and their sometimes off-topic rules are a tangential link between GA and the airlines, but mostly we're talking about two different worlds here.

It's like my nine year old trying to learn how to hit a wiffle ball by watching the World Series. Almost entirely off-topic, IMHO.
 
delusional said:
Interesting maybe. The author seems to me to be conflating two almost completely unrelated subjects. The airlines may be in a position to rightfully ask "how safe is safe enough." Nobody flying GA aircraft has any rational basis for claiming that statistics are so great for us, and the author doesn't exactly but even mentioning the stats of both in the same article is questionable. No basis for comparison.

I get that the FAA and their sometimes off-topic rules are a tangential link between GA and the airlines, but mostly we're talking about two different worlds here.

It's like my nine year old trying to learn how to hit a wiffle ball by watching the World Series. Almost entirely off-topic, IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree in part. But also it has accomplished two things. One, conversation about the topic that too much "safety" can kill an industry/activity. Two, these two worlds (pro flying and private flying) are composed of different pilots and missions. The latter is generally for fun, pleasure or personal reasons. The expenses necessary for the activity to exist in the fist place are limited. Many of these people fly for the risk-reward factor.

Agree, they're different. But the difference, to me, points out the relation of the two conditions. I will be priced out, and like bored out, of light GA flying well before it approaches air transport industry incident rates. So, yes - keep increasing regulation, limiting flying freedom, deepening the mandates for equipment (WAAS certified GPS for ADS-B, etc.) and watch light, personal GA safely wither.

Good conversation, I might add. Thought there'd be lots of emotional "safety group-think" tossed around.
 
Last edited:
A bit more precise

Maybe I should be a bit more precise. What I really mean is that governmental bureaus responsible for safety of the public cannot have any other goal than "zero accidents". They cannot accept accident happening where people dies for the same reason they cannot accept murder. They have to keep at it and maintain and improve the statistics in cooperation with the industry. This does not mean that the goal will ever be reached, that is statistically impossible.

Is it reasonable to accept more risk in GA? I mean it is a wrong question to ask because all answers will be meaningless without assessing what the real risks are, and find the best way to minimize them within the economics and social structure of the GA industry.

There is a fundamental difference between one man killing himself and a friend or two in his private airplane due to recklessness (departure in less than minimum weather for instance) and and airline company killing 200 due to poorly trained and reckless pilots. The first one is very difficult to do anything about, the second risk can be removed just by hiring new pilots (and new management). The cause of the accidents are the same.

These examples are one typical GA accident and one untypical airline accident. The GA accident has nothing to do with equipment or certifications or lack of certifications or poor maintenance or poor corporate systems or management or licenses. It has everything to do with airman-ship and judgment. It is difficult to see a way to minimize such accidents without also creating social structures with the GA communities that "enforces" good airman-ship and so on. I believe (and many with me) that a gliding club is such a structure, as is the various homebuilt communities and Ultralight clubs (in Europe). This is what's important, not more rules and regulations. It looks like the European aviation rule makers finally see this as well, I think due to the statistics of the ultralight that does not show significantly more death accidents than GA, even though GA is (or was) strictly regulated and the ultralight communities are completely "free" some places.
 
more safety talk needed

Low Pass said:
.... Thought there'd be lots of emotional "safety group-think" tossed around.
Click to expand...

I think we need more safety talk so keep the posts coming. I see two major camps; those who think "flying(including GA) is safe(or safe enough)", and the "yeah, the stats are bad, but nobody knows how to fix it so I guess I'll go flying...".

I'm more closely aligned with the second camp, though I do think there is a reasonable hope that significant improvements can still be made without giving away our freedoms. But it's going to take some expensive and difficult research that I don't think can come from the FAA or from us; it will have to come from some other side and that's the part we don't know yet. Somehow science must be brought to the problem. Or perhaps more science. Not sure.

The first camp is clearly just confused.
 
delusional said:
Somehow science must be brought to the problem. Or perhaps more science. Not sure.
Click to expand...

I think this is an issue that is swamped by willful ignorance from all sides, and I'm certainly not immune to it myself. The authorities say that you will do all sorts of bad things if we don't have full oversight and 100% control. We say that "I" may do an error or two, but "I" am much better/professional/lucky than 99% of the others. Science must definitely be brought to the problem.
 
I am a low time pilot. I will never have as many hours as most of you. I have made "safety deals" with myself knowing this.

1. I will not fly at night
2. I will not fly is bad weather
3. I will not run out of gas
4. I will not buzz my house or anything else
5. I will do a Complete pre-flight inspection every time I fly
6. My plane is only worth my deductible.

With these rules, I think I cut my chances down of having problems - but don't eliminate them and accept that risk.

What freaks me out and makes me re-consider flying at times is when a pilot with tons of experience has an accident. An accident in Wyoming last year took the lives of two very nice people I had met before. There were engine problems on takeoff. He was a good pilot with better skills than I can ever imagine having. What would have happened to me if I as the pilot of that plane? I am sure he was doing everything he could to have safe outcome. What can I learn from this accident?

What about the off field landing one of our posters made last year in Utah? He was coming in for a landing and had engine problems. He chose to put his plane down in a soccer field - right next to the airport. I can imagine how difficult that choice would be with the airport right there. He may have been able to make the airport, but he understood that you can't just hope and wish your way past the laws of physics. He had some damage and made he news, but he is alive to read the articles. This gives me hope and is a great example I have learned from.

Some risks can be reduced and some even eliminated. Still, people die in car crashes, skiing, bicycles, motorcycles, everyday even if they are trying to be careful. I admit I have considered selling my project because of the risk in flying. One of the regular posters here sold his project after Tony went down and another friend of his did too. The risk - reward scale went out of balance for him. I understand his logic and that it is right for him.

Bottom line for me - I will keep building and make sure I do plenty of training with an instructor and other pilots along with me. I will not be doing the first flight in my plane. I will have a more experienced pilot have that honor. I will keep my other safety rules and NEVER try to save my plane at the risk of a stall. I believe you can do a controlled crash almost anywhere but if you stall, it is all over.

Best of luck to all of us. The safer we all are, the better chance we have as general aviation pilots to keep our freedom to make our own risk assessment.
 
Eh...a lot of bashing the FAA and such in the article, lots of talk about "freedom" here, etc.

Come back and talk to me when we've all but eliminated a) running out of gas, and b) VFR flight into IMC (usually fatal) accidents.

Until then...I say no, we certainly haven't "won" the safety "battle", not by a long stretch.
 
Airline flying is a process to which we can assign performance goals. You reach these goals or you do not (win/lose).

Private flying is an extension of our (American) right to "pursue happiness". Both to our benefit and detriment, this means we must maintain and defend above all else the right to do dumb things and sometimes kill ourselves doing it. With such a conflict in the end goals, private flying will never be as safe as airline flying.

But yes, we can do better.
 
Toobuilder said:
Private flying is an extension of our (American) right to "pursue happiness". Both to our benefit and detriment, this means we must maintain and defend above all else the right to do dumb things and sometimes kill ourselves doing it.
Click to expand...

I could make the same argument about driving recklessly, for example. The argument is flawed, though, because oftentimes, it's not just the driver/pilot who is killed, but their passengers, innocent bystanders, etc. Then, of course, there are the inevitable lawsuits which follow (and raise the cost to everyone, and result in ever more regulations.

Or worse, someone practicing their "right to pursue happiness" (BTW, a phrase which appears nowhere in the Constitution...look it up) survives, but kills or maims someone else. Often this is criminally charged as a negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, etc.

Sorry, but the "right to do dumb things and kill ourselves" fails, IMO. Accidents with injuries or fatalities affect many, many more people than just the one doing the dumb thing.

ETA: BTW, I fail to see how making efforts to get people to follow rules like not flying VFR into IMC and not running out of gas are hurting your freedom to "pursue happiness". The solution to those problems is unlikely to involve any more regulation (the regulations already exist); it's likely to involve something else, be it education, stiffer penalties for violations (when the offender is still alive, something unlikely in the event of a VFR into IMC accident), or something else. So I still say...we can *think* about declaring "victory" in the battle for safety MAYBE when we've essentially eliminated at least those two kinds of accidents.

Until then, we have a looooong way to go.
 
Last edited:
I have looked at the fatal accident rates over the last 3 years for EAB and production aircraft which were used in part 91 (general aviation) operations. The mechanical failure rate was the same across both groups. If there is a difference in accident rates at all, it is due to the way we use EAB aircraft vs production aircraft.

People who rave about GA safety don?t know the state of the industry. Since 1980, we have been losing about 3,000 private pilots per year. The number of private pilots today compared to 1980 is down by more than 30%. For someone to get his PPL with zero time, it will cost approximately $11,000 and probably more depending on where he goes. There are few other hobbies (if any) which require this level of training and expense.

If we add safety to the system, we are essentially saying add cost to the system. Safety isn?t just added without expense. So we add safety, we add cost, to an already dying industry. What do you think is going to happen to that industry?

If people wanted 100% safety today, the means are already there. Be conservative in your decision making. When in doubt, turn around or don?t fly. But those aren?t the people who come to aviation (for the most part). Aviation draws adventure seekers today just as it has for literally thousands of years. Those people are the ones keeping GA alive today.
 
RV7A Flyer said:
Or worse, someone practicing their "right to pursue happiness" (BTW, a phrase which appears nowhere in the Constitution...look it up)
Click to expand...

Thats because it is int he declaration of independence...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But yes, one's pursuit of happiness should not infringe upon my life.
 
Chris Hill said:
Thats because it is int he declaration of independence...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But yes, one's pursuit of happiness should not infringe upon my life.
Click to expand...

But we should retain the basic freedom to do things (including the option of stupid ones) when not infringing upon another.
 
RV7A Flyer said:
BTW, I fail to see how making efforts to get people to follow rules like not flying VFR into IMC and not running out of gas are hurting your freedom to "pursue happiness".
Click to expand...

Whether or not someone?s freedom is impaired by ?making efforts? of this nature depends entirely on what actions are employed to achieve this goal. And I believe that is precisely the point others are making here. So in this context let?s discuss the areas you mentioned, i.e., flying VFR into IMC and running out of gas.

Education and training with respect to both the legalities and the likely adverse consequences of these two behaviors begins in basic flight training, and is reinforced throughout all aspects of a person?s flying experience. There?s never been more information available (print, video, audio, etc.) regarding how dangerous and unwise these behaviors are, and there?s never been easier access to the information than there is today thanks to technology. And yet every year, a statistically small group of pilots make these same mistakes and lives are lost. So in light of these facts how do you propose to get this particular group of people to do a better job of ?following the rules??

If one advocates what I consider non-intrusive methods for achieving a better GA accident record I am fully supportive. Examples could included improving further the nature or manner of access to the aforementioned information, requiring more discussion/review of safety related subjects during the BFR , encourage more peer group discussions among pilots about these and other areas where accidents can be reduced. However, I do not support the typical FAA/ regulatory agency approach to ?improving? these types of safety statistics of requiring every pilot to submit to more classes, training, ratings, new equipment, etc. I oppose such an approach because it will most certainly result in a further decrease of access to GA flying due to the necessary time and financial requirements. This certainty must be contrasted with the unlikely efficacy that such an approach will bring to bear on further reducing accident statistics. As others have said, this is an area of steeply diminishing returns because some people are just not receptive to self assessment or corrective behavior.
 
Freedom

MartinPred said:
Let's not forget that even with the requirements the Feds place on us, we still have the freest, highest-capacity, and safest air transportation enterprise in the world. There's very few places in the world where you can just hop in your puddle-jumper and go just about anywhere you want. But freedom isn't free. I'm not ready to relax on risk reduction and I hope the FAA isn't either.
-Matt
402BD
Click to expand...

I have been stewing on this one for a few days and now finally have to reply.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME! "But Freedom isn't free"
You are correct. I belive as our founders did that we have to fight for our freedoms. Not like you that we must give up freedom to be free.
 
Safety isn?t just added without expense. So we add safety, we add cost, to an already dying industry. What do you think is going to happen to that industry?
Click to expand...

What do you think is going to happen to it we keep having 3,000 dead pilots each year, many for *no good reason*? The past several decades' experience with lawyers wasn't enough lesson? Wait until they get a taste of the EAB market, the kitplane manufacturers, the "aftermarker" suppliers, etc.

So in light of these facts how do you propose to get this particular group of people to do a better job of ?following the rules??
Click to expand...

I don't know. If I did, I'd be doing it (and probably making money). But I believe that *giving up* and saying "we've won!" isn't going to do it, either.

But we should retain the basic freedom to do things (including the option of stupid ones) when not infringing upon another.
Click to expand...

You tell me what fatal aviation accident doesn't have some sort of impact (infringement) on other people? Go kill yourself by plowing into a mountain while VFR in IMC, and see who else that affects...spouses, family, insurers, the rest of us (possible new laws), the estate, the lawyers (who get richer), the suppliers (who have to jack up prices to cover additional liability insurance), and so on.

Thats because it is int he declaration of independence...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A document which has no force of law (unlike the Constitution, which does).

Make no mistake, I'm fully on the side of the least intrusive government and regulatory posture we need, the better...but please don't say that you have a "right" to "pursue happiness" by flying yourself into the ground.

Flying is *licensed*, and there clearly is no "right" to have a pilot's license (just like there's not "right" to drive a car).
 
RV7A Flyer said:
...Flying is *licensed*, and there clearly is no "right" to have a pilot's license (just like there's not "right" to drive a car).
Click to expand...

Without getting political, let's just say you are wrong on this point. Americans have a "right" to drive; they have a "right" to fly.

I do anyway.
 
Not sure how it got to 3000 dead pilots, but the records show about 450 average total general aviation deaths per year. I think the 3000 pilots per year is how many quit flying for one reason or another.
 
Toobuilder said:
Without getting political, let's just say you are wrong on this point. Americans have a "right" to drive; they have a "right" to fly.

I do anyway.
Click to expand...

I do too. I am free to fail, if that is taken away, then I am not free to succeed, either.

Training has improved over the years, but not necessarily judgement. A friend of mine worked toward her PPL a few years ago. It took many more hours than I took. That was probably a good thing, correction - it WAS a good thing. On her first solo the CFI sent her up on a day with 1500' ceiling with a 1000' pattern and sent her to the practice area. Upon leaving the airport environment, she entered IMC. Having studied the G1000, and being attracted to technology, she flew according to instruments, heading, and used GPS to turn around and get back to the airport and landed. She called me and was so happy to have soloed, but when I heard this I nearly fell out of my chair. I bit my tongue to support her accomplishment. A PhD, she was smart, cool and learned well. I would not say the same for the CFI that sent her out. Proper training was a fallback for poor judgement in this case and saved the day. More rules pile up and get forgotten, the basics get lost in the sea of exceptions that MUST be addressed. Teaching good judgement, as much as possible, is better than more rules (not an absolute, use judgement). Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
this is a GA safety forum, not constitutional law f...

RV7A Flyer said:
I could make the same argument about driving recklessly, for example. The argument is flawed, though, because oftentimes, it's not just the driver/pilot who is killed, but their passengers, innocent bystanders, etc. Then, of course, there are the inevitable lawsuits which follow (and raise the cost to everyone, and result in ever more regulations.

Or worse, someone practicing their "right to pursue happiness" ..
Click to expand...

I apologize in advance if you find my tone disrespectful. I do respect the views of all here very much, but I just have to vent here.

These debates about rights, freedoms, etc. are totally irrelevant to the OP, GA safety, the regulatory environment, and the future of GA in general. There is an overriding practical fact y'all must grapple with no matter your legal/political views or attitude to GA safety; A couple(more) high-profile accidents with numerous innocent victims can simply shut us all down for the duration. That is just a fact of our democracy. Neither the bill of rights, alphabet groups, or your congressman or senator can change that. We have to fix this or it will be fixed for us, or upon us. Get used to it and move on to improving the stats. No number of stupid car accidents will ever cause the general public to end easy(practically unregulated) access to cars. We are a tiny minority and the majority, or just a good-size mob, can squash us like bugs while you carry on about rights or freedoms or whatever abstract concept. This activity we love and hold dearly is very, very fragile. It requires better protection than some legal theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top